the TUC says the public won't stomach the cuts because they are regressive, unfair and let the rich off the hook

[harpsichordcarrier]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11276452

a little poll-tax style civil disobedience?
can you anticipate this happening?
can you anticipate joining in?

I am not critising closing tax loopholes; I am just saying that it is difficult to predict how much you will raise by doing so.

Indeed.
I was in Zug earlier this year for work. Plenty of people have moved there. Better skiing in the UK and very low tax rates. Lots of high earners are mobile. If tax got too bad I would consider moving. Work is fun but if in one country 60% of your income simply goes back to the poor ( like the man in teh NE in today's paper who has 12 children by 10 women and h'e 24 and they will cost about £2m as virtualyl all the women are on benefits) then I'd rather work in another country where I can keep more of it.

The thing that riles me so much about this debate is whenever cuts are mentioned it is frontline services that the bureactrats and bosses cut. They never cut their own job or pay.

This is the big trap the Coaliton are going to fall into. They will allow 'the opposition in waiting' now sititng in Town Halls, top of Quangoes, Local health Autorities, the Education sector to decide where the cuts fall. Guess what, they will put the cuts? Where it makes the most public impact and blame the Coalition meanwhile preserving their own nice job/income ready for when they hope to slip into a nice job when Labour gets back into power.

This is why senior people need to be sacked first - to stop them delaying and obfuscating the cuts. An entire layer of local Govt removed. I would shut all the old Poly universities too as well as half of all Govt departments. A shock and awe attack on bureacracy yes but not front line cuts.

a good pruning at the top of the bush and leave all the leaves at the bottom woudl save a pretty penny

9000 workers in public service earn more than the PM

Then all public secotr workers get tarred with the same brush

teachers earning far in excess of £200k

cheif of police and his side wkcik earning over

** taken from the telegraph
Nearly 6,500 NHS staff are paid more than the Prime Minister, with two GPs earning about £475,500 a year. Another 10 GPs are earning more than £300,000 a year.

In the education sector, 385 teachers in England earn more than £100,000 and 17 get more than the Prime Minister.

The best paid was an unnamed teacher from Essex on £232,500, followed by Mark Elms, the head teacher of Tidemill Primary School in Lewisham, south-east London, on £231,400.

The highest-paid policeman is Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson on £280,489, while his deputy, Tim Godwin, is paid £246,969.

In the Armed Forces, 832 individuals earn more than £100,000 a year ? excluding civil servants working in the Ministry of Defence ? and 2,013 working in the judiciary are on six-figure salaries.

Local councils employ 362 people on more than or the same pay as Mr Cameron. The highest paid council employee is Gerald Jones, the chief executive of Wandsworth borough council in south London, who earns £299,925 a year. Peter Gilroy, the chief executive, is paid £243,388.

The figures were obtained for Panorama through more than 2,400 Freedom of Information requests.

Last night, Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office Minister, said that the inflated salaries should not be necessary and that people should be driven to work for lower salaries out of a sense of public duty.

Then all public service workers get accused of inflated saliers - I guess not all teachers and policemen are on thsi tyep of salery

Hmmmm...am never sure about the public duty bit.

And here's the thing. If you pay peanuts you get a monkey. Surely someone with responsibility for a huge budget and workforce needs to be a fantastic executive - the sort who could work anywhere.
And to get him/her to work for you, you need to pay well.

so why do they earn more than the PM then litchick - as he would surely have the most important and biggest budget and workfrce int he county?

Personally I think the PM's wage is ridiculously low...but there you go.

Also I guess you have to take ino account other benefits which for PM include two homes wiht all expenses paid. Clothes allowance, staff etc etc. I guess it's a pretty good package.

Plus, after a stint as PM you're set up financially for life.

I don't think most of them have been set up for life (it's a new thing) although Blair has been. Will be interesting to see if Brown is.

At the moment highly paid public sector workers have no other jobs to go to. Even the army for once has too many recruits at present so we aren't in a situation where good talented people are going to be lured elsewhere so it's good time to make them take pay freezes and ensure when new people are recruited to take over public sector workers on £200k that the job is offered at say £100k.

The radio 4 programme on pay at the weekend made the fascinating comment about a job ad. When it was advertised at £50k no women applied (they thought it was too good for them - women need a huge change in their outlook on these issues; am I the only one in the UK who thinks she is the best in the Uk at what she does). They they readvertised at £30k and got lots of good women applying. Anyway that's slightly off topic.

Francis Maude on Panorama said he believed in the old fashioned notion that if you went into public service you were doing it out of a sense of duty/responsibility, not for the money

Francis Maude's other jobs outside politics include non-executive director of ASDA Group, director at Salomon Brothers, and managing director of Morgan Stanley & Co

[warms hands over candle in garret]

Xenia - isn't it possible that they thought "50K? They're going to want me at their beck and call. No thanks." Not that it should be women (as opposed to men) who have to think in that way, though.

I don't think so as they did ask some of them later. They thought the job was too good for them as they were only women rather thinking they were wonderful and deserved never mind £50k but £100k.

"Mark Elms, the head teacher of Tidemill Primary School in Lewisham, south-east London, on £231,400".

I think I am right in saying that Elms is not paid that sum year in and year out, but just in one year. That is, a one off. He earned that by doing other educational related work outside/on top of his role as Head and I believe not just of one school but two. If anyone has ever been to the area he works in or had a go at being a head of a huge school, then you might think differently. As far as I can see he has done a great job in that community and that is reflected by the pupils and their parents. They don't seem bitter and gladly applaud him.

Comparitively, I know someone who works in banking, left uni 5 years ago who gets paid more than Elms every year and this is common place. but, everyone is saying Elm's pay award is not right?

Yes, because one is public and the other private sector and at the moment if we capped public sector pay at £100k I doubt we would have public sector workers leaving in droves and even if we did there are large numbers of great private sector people needing jobs who could step into the breach.

Why would he be allowed to do work outside of being head. It is very very common in many companies for employees ( but not everyone of course) that they have a clause in their employment contract that they will not take another job.

I will be marching against any more cuts. It is a shame on a country that thinks its ok to make the poorest people in society suffer the most through cuts when we could quite easily tax the rich more. Close the tax loop holes and slash the pay of parliament, they are the ones who are "working for the good of the country" not me.

if you are rich and lucky enough to be mobile and dont like what ive suggested by all means leave the country, we will be better off without people who are that selfish.

@nordicprincess.... It's very easy to say 'tax the rich'. But the problem is that if we were to tax the rich the full amount to cover the deficit, and keep public spending at the same elevated levels, even 'the rich' wouldn't have that much money. So there has to be some reduction in public spending. 'The poor' are always more reliant on public services and, whether you cut public spending by £1m or £10bn and whether you do that today or two years down the track they are inevitably the ones that are affected.

BTW we could make MP's salary zero and we'd still only save around £50-£60m... a drop in the ocean.

And as I asked, on page 1 of this thread, if 'taxing the rich' is so easy - why didn't Labour do it in 2007 - rather than dramatically increasing government debt?

I can understand why protests will happen, if you lose your job and can't pay the mortgage etc; but I won't be joining in because I think the cuts are needed.

Chil - if you're still around. Do you understand why Osborne's IHT threshold rise plan, scared Labour into backing away from an early election? It came up on the R4 programme about Gordon Brown, on Tuesday. It genuinely appeared to be the key reason which I find surprising.

It would never occur to me to link the two, quite honestly. Brown's popularity peaked and dropped in remarkably quick succession. Banking crisis and he was saving the world... few months later and he couldn't get arrested.

Labour, if I remember rightly, did that big sneer campaign about 'tax breaks for Tory millionaire cronies' but maybe the polls showed that raising the IHT threshold to a more sensible level was more popular with ordinary voters than was reported... maybe the average man in the street wasn't as stupid as Labour thought? (And that wouldn't be the first time) :)

Shall try to find the Radio 4 listen again thingy!

Here is the link.

Ed Balls and all the others admit to lying about the Election That Never Was, and they candidly admit that Osborne's announcement on inheritance tax was the reason they called it off.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tt59k/The_Brown_Years_Episode_1/

Thanks for the link. That whole New Labour crowd. Every time I hear something new about them e.g. PM and Chancellor not speaking for years, Mandelson's scheming, Campbell putting the thumbscrews on.... I start to think that 'In the Thick of It' was actually not a spoof documentary, it was the real thing. They were bastards in sheep's clothing whereas Osborne et al are at least bastards in bastard's clothing... and you have to respect that.

LFN - thanks for confirming my understanding. Would the IHT threshold reduction have won the Tories the election? It seems bizarre that Labour were afraid that it would.

Chil